Unicorn Analysis #2: Snapchat

Background:

Current Estimated Valuation: $10+ Billion
# of Patents Owned: 2 + many pending/active
Competition: Facebook/Instagram, Vine, Mojo, Twitter, Periscope, etc

Patent Detail #1

This is Snapchat's first patent that they filed in August 2012 and was published April 2013. 

Title: "Single mode visual media capture" Essentially this is for the camera function that allows it to snap very quickly- the tap and hold feature. 
Issues: A company named Mojo Media filed a near-identical patent a few weeks after Snapchat. They are currently in litigation with Snapchat due for a "patent interference proceeding". As of late 2015, they are still in litigation sorting this patent.

Patent Detail #2

Snapchat filed for this patent in November 2014. 

Patent Details "could let users unlock photos and messages from friends if they're standing in just the right spot". This is currently being filed and has not been issued as of yet. 

Competition/Other Issues:

Clearly, other companies within social media want to get into Snapchat's area. Particularly, Facebook which has a large user base, high revenue, and wants to better monetize on social media.

Sources:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/21/snapchat-has-a-patent-that-could-help-it-become-the-defacto-camera-app/

http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/14/snapchat-patent/

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09015285&IDKey=9F45B35AA8E0&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect2%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D9015285.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F9015285%2526RS%3DPN%2F9015285

http://www.google.com/patents/US8428453

Unicorn Analysis: Lyft

Ridesharing Unicorn: Lyft

Background

Current Estimated Valuation: Bloomberg said this latest financing could value Lyft between $3.9 billion and $4.5 billion (The Verge)
# of Patents Owned: 0*
Competition: Uber + various other competitors in other countries.

*Details

Interestingly, Lyft only has XYZ patents. However, recently General Motors invested in Lyft and decided to buy Sidecar's patents. Essentially, Sidecar had a 2002 patent on ridesharing. This makes it particularity interesting against Uber, which as 34 patents, because General Motors is ready to defend Lyft.

What does this particular GM/Sidecar patent cover?

The patent details a system in which a passenger uses a wireless device to request a ride, which is then sent to a server, which finds an appropriate driver.
Wired describes it as "In other words, it covers the core of any modern ride sharing service" .

Hence, this presents a major challenge for a company like Uber which is competing directly against Lyft. Moreover, Uber's latest valuation by Bloomberg is $60+ Billion. This is more than 10x that of Lyft, which could present a greater challenge. It would be in Uber's best interest to litigate Lyft or pursue a buyout in order to better monopolize ride sharing.

Sources:
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/gms-newly-acquired-patent-could-be-a-problem-for-uber/
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10635868/lyft-billions-valuation-uber-rideshare-war

Marvell vs CMU: Claim Analysis

Case Summary

The case involves Marvell, a large semiconductor company versus Carnegie Mellon University, a large research university in Pittsburgh.

The verdict: 

CMU wins $750 million from Marvell. However The university expects to receive about $250 million from the settlement after legal fees and related costs. A significantly less amount than the headlines state.

Patents in Litigation

1. No. 6,201,839: “Method and Apparatus for Correlation-Sensitive Adaptive Sequence Detection”
2. No. 6,438,180: "Soft and Hard Sequence Detection in ISI Memory Channels.”

Claim #1 of Patent #1

Patent link:http://www.google.com/patents/US6201839 

1. A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Virterbi-like detector, comprising:

1. selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index; and 
2. applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant

Analysis

This patent includes a method of determining branch metric values, specifically for a trellis of a Viterbi-like detector. This means the patent only applies to a "Viterbi-like director" 

• The fist application means that the function is related a "certain time index". Essentially, if there is not a time index, the patent doesn't apply to this method of determining branch metric values.
• The functions have to be for a plurality of signal samples used in determination for method 1. Moreover, each signal sample is for a different sampling time insert of the determination for method 1. This means that if the same signal is used each time, the patent is applied. 

• 
  

Amgen vs Sandoz Case: Claim Analysis

Case Summary:

Current case revolving around Amgen's drug Enbrel. Sandoz is currently creating a biosimilar for Enbrel, and is in Phase 3 of drug trials. Next step is launch, but Amgen is utilizing its Enbrel patents and method/manufacturing process to prevent Sandoz's biosimilar from launching in market.

Summary of Patents (only 3/5 are related to case)

1. The ’182 patent is said to cover the etanercept fusion protein --> main protein in Enbrel
2. The ’522 patent is said to cover constructs and methods of making the fusion protein.
3. The other patents are said to “claim methods of using etanercept to treat psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis.”

Claim Analysis for Patent: 8,063,182

Link: http://www.google.com/patents/US8063182

1. A protein comprising

(a) a human tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-binding soluble fragment of an insoluble human TNF receptor, wherein the insoluble human TNF receptor (i) specifically binds human TNF, (ii) has an apparent molecular weight of about 75 kilodaltons on a non-reducing SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and (iii) comprises the amino acid sequence LPAQVAFXPYAPEPGSTC (SEQ ID NO: 10); and

(b) all of the domains of the constant region of a human immunoglobulin IgG heavy chain other than the first domain of said constant region;

Within the patent application, one sees how there are a lot of DNA sequences and Amino Acid sequences - essentially what make up a protein. When looking at claim #1, part a is divided into 3 sections.

• The insoluble human TNF receptor --> specifically binds to human TNF
• the patent isn't valid for the receptor binding to something else
• the insoluble human TNF receptor --> weighs about 75 kilodaltons
• the patent is only for this specific receptor when it weights about this much
• the insoluble human TNF receptor --> amino acid sequence LPAQVAFXPYAPEPGSTC 
• thus if this specific receptor, has this sequence, the patent holds. In biological terms, it would be near impossible to create the same receptor with a diff AA Sequence. However, it is possible to create a receptor that may do a similar function.
• b) The patent only applies if the  protein binds to IgG heavy chain regions, except first. Hence, patent is only valid for this specific antibody. 

Marvell vs Carnegie Mellon

Marvell vs Carnegie Mellon

The case involves Marvell, a large semiconductor company versus Carnegie Mellon University, a large research university in Pittsburgh.

The verdict: 

CMU wins $750 million from Marvell. However The university expects to receive about $250 million from the settlement after legal fees and related costs. A significantly less amount than the headlines state.

Patents in Litigation

1. No. 6,201,839: “Method and Apparatus for Correlation-Sensitive Adaptive Sequence Detection”
2. No. 6,438,180: "Soft and Hard Sequence Detection in ISI Memory Channels.”

These are complicated titles, but to put it simply. they are related to "methods to improve accuracy in the detection of recorded data when certain types of errors are likely due to the recording medium and reading mechanism" 

In conclusion, Marvell owes CMU a significant chunk of money. This would be a windfall for the university, which would help boost student services according to school officials. Interestingly, the case went to the District Court of Pennsylvania and the Federal Circuit Appeals court, until finally reaching an amount. 

Source:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3034719/marvell-carnegie-mellon-settle-patent-dispute-over-hard-drive-chips.html

Amgen vs Sandoz

Amgen vs Sandoz

This is an interesting and upcoming case revolving around Amgen's drug Enbrel. Sandoz is currently creating a biosimilar for Enbrel, and is in Phase 3 of drug trials. Next step is launch, but Amgen is utilizing its patent-protected Enbrel and method/manufacturing process to prevent Sandoz's biosimilar from launching in market.

Summary of Patents

1. The ’182 patent is said to cover the etanercept fusion protein --> main protein in Enbrel
2. The ’522 patent is said to cover constructs and methods of making the fusion protein.
3. The other patents are said to “claim methods of using etanercept to treat psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis.”

Essentially, the case revolves around these patents owned by Immunex, which is a subsidiary of Amgen. 

Why is this important?

Within the next 2-3 years, many large molecule drugs, will be coming off patent. As a result, many pharmaceutical companies are creating biosimilars (the equivalent of generics). These will provide patients with more options and end the monopoly some companies have due to their patents. Amgen is trying to block Sandoz from creating a biosimilar, by arguing that it has multiple patents on the drug and its manufacturing process. This is pertinent, because if it can show how Sandoz utilizes one of these patents, then it can have an injunction on Sandoz and prevent it from selling the biosimilar. 

Source:
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/amgen-launches-enbrel-biosimilar-patent-37046/